Original XBOX performance

[Ganoncrotch]

Pemalite said:

OlfinBedwere said:

The main two were order-independent transparency, which produces nicer and more realistic transparency effects, and deferred shading, which is what a lot of modern-day engines employ. It's just that the former wasn't really that useful when you generally only had two texture layers going on at once, and the Dreamcast wasn't poweful enough to do much with the latter other than create some nice-looking spheres.

(And I should probably have said other companies didn't incorporate them in hardware until PS4/XB1, since you probably can pull off said effects on PS3/360; you'd just have to do it in software)

You can use Depth Peeling on the Original Xbox and Xbox 360 in order to accomplish a form of order-independent transparency by leveraging the Depth/G-buffer anyway... And was actually a requirement on the Original Xbox for the game 'Shrek' as it used Deffered Rendering.

The Original Xbox had programmable shaders and the necessary buffers, so it was capable of some impressive techniques like that.

COKTOE said:

It's very surprising to me that there are people who think the GC had better looking games than the XB. Is it an exaggeration to say that literally every multi-plat game looked better on the Xbox? I don't think it is. Even if the differences were minor, they always favored the Xbox. Some publishers would also put half assed effort, into the GC version of certain games. EA did this with Madden. I was blown away by how shoddy Madden was on the GC.

In short the games are the proof.
Halo 2 was leveraging some impressive lighting, bump mapping, shadowing and shader effects at the time, even had depth of field.
Morrowind was a stupidly massive game with some impressive shadered water.
Ninja Gaiden Black has some impressive texture work.

The Original Xbox also had games in High Definition... So I think it's safe to say, the Xbox had the graphics edge that generation.
Although the Gamecube certainly had bang-for-buck.

In some ways, but using something like dire ports of Madden from EA onto the GC was more an indication of what EA thought about the console at the time more than the graphical power that it was capable of, using software to try to directly say "look what the hardware is capable of" in terms of a system where devs don't have confidence (or coding ability) would mean that someone could jump to games like WWE2k18 on the Switch to suggest the machine isn't capable of playing a x360 title above 10fps

Of course if you have an entire library of games which look better on one machine than the other then you have other things to consider and could say that software overall does say that the machine was more powerful, but keep in mind as well on the ps2/xbox games had access to an absolute ton more storage space, even a 2 disc game on the GC would still be around half the space of anything on a DVD, never mind a dual layer disk.

Just saying, that "software = representation of the machines power" could lead to someone posting this

As the ability of the Switch. Seriously though... love that video so much, watch the framerate when their name bar appears at the end, you can pretty much count the frames.

 

When it comes to the Sixth generation though, if I'm not mistaken wasn't factor 5's Star Wars game the highest polygon shifting title of that generation (I could be wrong on that, but have heard it uttered a few times, not saying that misinformation can't spread)

Sure was beautiful though.